It's funny, actually. I distinctly remember that you said in one of your posts that you were interested in Orthodoxy, however, I have not seen anything from you that suggests that you have any wish to do so. I haven't seen any questions, no inquiry, no interest whatsoever, only statements, of whom, many have been so cryptic that several people in here(including myself) have had a very hard time figuring out, what exactly you are talking about. What do you even know about Orthodoxy, that gives the above statement any basis?

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

For example the Early Church Fathers would want one to keep celibate, however God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit is actually against that,

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." - Genesis 2:18

Even later? When God was looking for Adam, saying "oh Adam! Why are you hiding from me?" Then it all came out, and Adam promptly blamed everything on God, saying, "It's this woman you gave to me." And then they were kind at odds with each other after that, weren't they?

So even though The Early Church Fathers can be good in some areas, sometimes they are in error.

So what we must rely on is the original greek manuscripts.

Which manuscripts would those be? Have you considered that those Church Fathers, who could fluently read Greek, who often had the best education available at the time, who led holy lives without recommending fornication and lust, but rather chastity and the sanctity of marriage, might have had some insight that you don't get by looking up Greek word #143whatever?

it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Tradition isn't faith, tradition is tradition and mostly comes from man(such as don't look at a woman, or premartial sex) things the pharisees would do.

Luke 11:46 - Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

Help them? To fornicate, to pursue their negative passions, to do what is clearly wrong both in the tradition and in the Scriptures?

Did it ever occur to you that those behaviours have real and tangible spiritual effects on a person? The body and soul are together. And what we do effects others, better that a millstone be hung around your neck.

It's like reading an Electrical Code Book. It will tell you a lot of rules and shall's, but it doesn't tell you how to actually install an electrical system. That's why people can't recreate first century Christendom by the Scriptures.

Could it be you are just looking for an excuse to indulge yourself? Most guys I know wouldn't go to this much trouble over it, they'd just do it and not pretend they're a Christian or even care anything about God. They live after their flesh, and they see nothing wrong with it.

As a matter of fact, I'm becoming more convinced of the idea that people who protest abortion should also be protesting men who create those unwanted children.

Do you also think abortion is okay? Do you think it is okay to grope women on the bus? Where is your limit? Which Greek word will you find next to indulge your prurient passions while being a 'Christian'?

Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.

Chapter 3. Other Sins Forbidden. My child, flee from every evil thing, and from every likeness of it. Be not prone to anger, for anger leads to murder. Be neither jealous, nor quarrelsome, nor of hot temper, for out of all these murders are engendered. My child, be not a lustful one. for lust leads to fornication. Be neither a filthy talker, nor of lofty eye, for out of all these adulteries are engendered. My child, be not an observer of omens, since it leads to idolatry. Be neither an enchanter, nor an astrologer, nor a purifier, nor be willing to took at these things, for out of all these idolatry is engendered. My child, be not a liar, since a lie leads to theft. Be neither money-loving, nor vainglorious, for out of all these thefts are engendered. My child, be not a murmurer, since it leads the way to blasphemy. Be neither self-willed nor evil-minded, for out of all these blasphemies are engendered.

Rather, be meek, since the meek shall inherit the earth. Be long-suffering and pitiful and guileless and gentle and good and always trembling at the words which you have heard. You shall not exalt yourself, nor give over-confidence to your soul. Your soul shall not be joined with lofty ones, but with just and lowly ones shall it have its intercourse. Accept whatever happens to you as good, knowing that apart from God nothing comes to pass.

...it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error

So I assume Jesus lied when He said that the gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church. The Church is a physical concept with identifiable similarities and believers. You state that it's those who have faith in Christ--I agree, but that begs the question, which Christ? The Christ of the Gnostics, the Christ of the Muslims, the Christ of the Mormons etc? The point is that--as much as people like to reject it--proper dogma and doctrine ARE vital and essential when it comes to having faith in Christ. In fact, those are the only things by which we can even know who the true Christ is. Anyone can claim to have faith in Christ, but when they have a false view of Christ, then they don't really have faith in the true Christ, but in their own idol of what they believe Christ is like. Likewise, the notion of faith in Christ being some individualistic path to discover for ourselves without any formalization, fellowship or concise dogma/doctrines is HERESY! St. Paul makes it very clear that--rather than going it alone--we are to ADHERE to the traditions we were taught by the Apostles--both in written and oral tradition (2 Thess. 2:15) and urges us to be united together in them (1 Cor. 1:10). The path you are advocating is contrary to both of these concepts, and is therefore heretical and false. Once again--in the words of St. Paul--"But even if we, or an Angel from Heaven, preach any other Gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, now so I say again, if anyone preaches any other Gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed!". What you are advocating is essentially different than the original Gospel we were delivered because--contrary to St. Paul--you are advocating an individualistic approach to a relationship with Christ (contrary to the union mentioned in 1 Cor. 1:10) and are thus not adhering to the traditions we were delivered (2 Thess. 2:15).

Quote

Tradition isn't faith, tradition is tradition and mostly comes from man(such as don't look at a woman, or premartial sex) things the pharisees would do.

Still kinda on the fence about premarital sex, but as for this argument in general, I disagree. Guess what? The Bible is Tradition. Yes, it's true. St. Paul makes no distinction of importance in regards to written and oral teachings from them in 2 Thess. 2:15. So if you are going to say that all tradition isn't faith and is wrong, then you are also throwing out the Bible and the Apostles' own words.

Logged

Until I see the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, I will not believe.

I don't care what Protestants or orthodox's say, I care about what The Bible says. The Bible and Early Church Fathers are the authority,

You contradict yourself in this statement.

Orthodox "church" isn't the Early Church Fathers.

It is our belief that the Church has kept the apostolic faith, which is also the faith of the Early Church Fathers.

It's funny, actually. I distinctly remember that you said in one of your posts that you were interested in Orthodoxy, however, I have not seen anything from you that suggests that you have any wish to do so. I haven't seen any questions, no inquiry, no interest whatsoever, only statements, of whom, many have been so cryptic that several people in here(including myself) have had a very hard time figuring out, what exactly you are talking about. What do you even know about Orthodoxy, that gives the above statement any basis?

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

For example the Early Church Fathers would want one to keep celibate, however God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit is actually against that,

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." - Genesis 2:18

So even though The Early Church Fathers can be good in some areas, sometimes they are in error.

So what we must rely on is the original greek manuscripts.

it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Tradition isn't faith, tradition is tradition and mostly comes from man(such as don't look at a woman, or premartial sex) things the pharisees would do.

I don't care what Protestants or orthodox's say, I care about what The Bible says. The Bible and Early Church Fathers are the authority,

You contradict yourself in this statement.

Orthodox "church" isn't the Early Church Fathers.

It is our belief that the Church has kept the apostolic faith, which is also the faith of the Early Church Fathers.

It's funny, actually. I distinctly remember that you said in one of your posts that you were interested in Orthodoxy, however, I have not seen anything from you that suggests that you have any wish to do so. I haven't seen any questions, no inquiry, no interest whatsoever, only statements, of whom, many have been so cryptic that several people in here(including myself) have had a very hard time figuring out, what exactly you are talking about. What do you even know about Orthodoxy, that gives the above statement any basis?

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

For example the Early Church Fathers would want one to keep celibate, however God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit is actually against that,

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." - Genesis 2:18

So even though The Early Church Fathers can be good in some areas, sometimes they are in error.

So what we must rely on is the original greek manuscripts.

it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Tradition isn't faith, tradition is tradition and mostly comes from man(such as don't look at a woman, or premartial sex) things the pharisees would do.

I don't care what Protestants or orthodox's say, I care about what The Bible says. The Bible and Early Church Fathers are the authority,

You contradict yourself in this statement.

Orthodox "church" isn't the Early Church Fathers.

It is our belief that the Church has kept the apostolic faith, which is also the faith of the Early Church Fathers.

It's funny, actually. I distinctly remember that you said in one of your posts that you were interested in Orthodoxy, however, I have not seen anything from you that suggests that you have any wish to do so. I haven't seen any questions, no inquiry, no interest whatsoever, only statements, of whom, many have been so cryptic that several people in here(including myself) have had a very hard time figuring out, what exactly you are talking about. What do you even know about Orthodoxy, that gives the above statement any basis?

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

For example the Early Church Fathers would want one to keep celibate, however God(The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit is actually against that,

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." - Genesis 2:18

So even though The Early Church Fathers can be good in some areas, sometimes they are in error.

So what we must rely on is the original greek manuscripts.

it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Tradition isn't faith, tradition is tradition and mostly comes from man(such as don't look at a woman, or premartial sex) things the pharisees would do.

Awesome. Some folks can't even figure out how to use a quote tag period.

If you are going to split quotes, try to use the the first quote tag generated at the beginning of the quote box for the start of each quote (that makes no sense probably, I am very tired). It makes it easier to check to see the words were in the quote to begin with.

In Leviticus 20, there is a large section having to do with "uncovering the nakedness" of various relatives: fathers' wife, son's wife, half-sister, an aunt or uncle's wife, etc. - all kinds of relational combinations possible in the multi-wife, extended families of that time.

Interesting also because, in the Pentateuch itself therefore, there is an ordering of sexual mores within the family that take for granted men having more than one wife: for example, the text doesn't say to not uncover the nakedness of your mother or sister; it refers to your father's wife or your father's daughter or your mother's daughter.

In that context, one's mother is his father's wife, but the woman whose nakednes he is told not to uncover is ALSO his father's wife (and perhaps his half-sister's mother), so therefore it is forbidden.

"Uncovering nakedness" can be variously interpreted as merely looking, or taking advantage of in some way, all the way to engaging in sex with the person. In other words, uncovering nakedness is a euphemism, just like "knowing" one's wife.

Leviticus has a lot of information people don't like, disregard, and attempt to persuade it actually says something it does not. It’s difficult to have a real discussion with someone who does this. It’s one of the many things which pushed me away from being protestant and toward Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy doesn’t change no matter how much someone wants it to be different. It is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t.

You mean like the Oriental Orthodox since the mid-fifth century?

No

Fair enough. But then, which side of the accept-it-or-not do you put them (since the mid-fifth century that is) on? It has to be one or the other, right?

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

...

it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Quite frankly, when you make statements like these, it is hardly to be wondered that you haven't received a very warm reception on this forum. (Of course then, even those of us who are, I believe, a lot more reasonable than you are, don't receive a very warm reception on this forum either.)

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

...

it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Quite frankly, when you make statements like these, it is hardly to be wondered that you haven't received a very warm reception on this forum. (Of course then, even those of us who are, I believe, a lot more reasonable than you are, don't receive a very warm reception on this forum either.)

I like you Peter

Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

In Leviticus 20, there is a large section having to do with "uncovering the nakedness" of various relatives: fathers' wife, son's wife, half-sister, an aunt or uncle's wife, etc. - all kinds of relational combinations possible in the multi-wife, extended families of that time.

Interesting also because, in the Pentateuch itself therefore, there is an ordering of sexual mores within the family that take for granted men having more than one wife: for example, the text doesn't say to not uncover the nakedness of your mother or sister; it refers to your father's wife or your father's daughter or your mother's daughter.

In that context, one's mother is his father's wife, but the woman whose nakednes he is told not to uncover is ALSO his father's wife (and perhaps his half-sister's mother), so therefore it is forbidden.

"Uncovering nakedness" can be variously interpreted as merely looking, or taking advantage of in some way, all the way to engaging in sex with the person. In other words, uncovering nakedness is a euphemism, just like "knowing" one's wife.

Leviticus has a lot of information people don't like, disregard, and attempt to persuade it actually says something it does not. It’s difficult to have a real discussion with someone who does this. It’s one of the many things which pushed me away from being protestant and toward Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy doesn’t change no matter how much someone wants it to be different. It is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t.

You mean like the Oriental Orthodox since the mid-fifth century?

No

Fair enough. But then, which side of the accept-it-or-not do you put them (since the mid-fifth century that is) on? It has to be one or the other, right?

Have either really changed in the last 1500 years? I do not believe it would matter which one was chosen.

Leviticus has a lot of information people don't like, disregard, and attempt to persuade it actually says something it does not. It’s difficult to have a real discussion with someone who does this. It’s one of the many things which pushed me away from being protestant and toward Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy doesn’t change no matter how much someone wants it to be different. It is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t.

You mean like the Oriental Orthodox since the mid-fifth century?

No

Fair enough. But then, which side of the accept-it-or-not do you put them (since the mid-fifth century that is) on? It has to be one or the other, right?

Have either really changed in the last 1500 years? I do not believe it would matter which one was chosen.

So, just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, you're putting them on the accepting-it side of the "[Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t", right?

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

...

it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Quite frankly, when you make statements like these, it is hardly to be wondered that you haven't received a very warm reception on this forum. (Of course then, even those of us who are, I believe, a lot more reasonable than you are, don't receive a very warm reception on this forum either.)

The only problem is that he is correct as far as such things go. If people were more charitable to the more "interesting" posters, you might see how quite right they are.

If the poster isn't correct, could you please show me The Official Church Building?

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

...

it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Quite frankly, when you make statements like these, it is hardly to be wondered that you haven't received a very warm reception on this forum. (Of course then, even those of us who are, I believe, a lot more reasonable than you are, don't receive a very warm reception on this forum either.)

The only problem is that he is correct as far as such things go. If people were more charitable to the more "interesting" posters, you might see how quite right they are.

If the poster isn't correct, could you please show me The Official Church Building?

Well ... I'm afraid I can't, at least not off the top of my head. Although, if you could tell me when it was last known to have existed and what it looked like, that might help.

[/Quote]One example of that is something I learned from my favorite religious professor at church. Thinking about Islam and the four wives at one time limit, not counting slave girls, I asked about monogamy, and where in the Bible it states that polygamy is not acceptable. The Old Testament has polygamy, and I really couldn't think of anywhere the New Testament explicitly states that polygamy is no longer acceptable.

He said that is one of the big problems with Sola Scriptura, that there isn't anywhere that states and man can have only one wife, so officially there isn't an argument for monogamy.

So, my rhetorical questions are, how then do 'scripture only' people argue for monogamy? Was forcing the Mormons to give up polygamy only a state issue?

[/quote]

Irini, I do not want to hijack this thread and take it in another direction, but if you would like to start a thread about whether monogamy is taught in the Bible I will join in with some thoughts.

Another quote, this one from Orthonorm: Awesome. Some folks can't even figure out how to use a quote tag period.Ha! That would be me!

I've come to accept that Truth can only be found in The Bible, and what The Early Church Fathers got from The Bible.

...

it has also come to my attention that no church today can be the true church, The True Church is just those who have Faith In Christ, there no longer exist an official Church building due to different denominations, even a non-denominational church would be in error,

Quite frankly, when you make statements like these, it is hardly to be wondered that you haven't received a very warm reception on this forum. (Of course then, even those of us who are, I believe, a lot more reasonable than you are, don't receive a very warm reception on this forum either.)

The only problem is that he is correct as far as such things go. If people were more charitable to the more "interesting" posters, you might see how quite right they are.

If the poster isn't correct, could you please show me The Official Church Building?

Based on the postings on this site, I assume it's this strange former mosque in Turkey:

I am only a few years into this Orthodoxy thing, but the impression I have gotten from the Internets is that this is the Most Important Official Orthodox Building In History Ever Anywhere™.

Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.

1 Corinthians 6:9Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

It seems like every version after the 1611/1613 KJV/AV has gone into a downward spiral of evangelical bias and overtly secular translations which distort the native tongues of Hebrew and Greek (I don't speak Greek so I have to go by what I'm told for that one)Most of the mistakes in the 1613 and back are honest mistakes (like the Jehovah phenomenon), even in the Puritan 1599 Geneva Bible and the Geneva series in general, they kept their Protestant bias to marginal notes...

But how is the NKJV specifically heretical? You don't say anything about this at all.

as I said before, it's going in a downward spiral of Protestant wording and bias. There is even [small] talk of discontinuing all KJV/AV versions with the "apocrypha" other than the 1611/1613. It is a lot smaller than the discussions for other translations (like many of the ones who didn't even include any form of apocrypha, as if putting them in a seperate section entitled with a word that means "hidden" wasn't bad enough).

I could write a book about what is going wrong with most Bible translations nowadays (and many people already have)

also, here are a few things you should make note of if you get any online parallel toolsGenesis 2:18Genesis 22:8 (possible Arianism)Genesis 24:47 (although there is some debate)Psalm 109:6 removes "satan" as well as many other foremost translations like NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSVSt. Mathew 12:40St. Matthew 18:26 (blasphemy)St. Luke 21:8 St. John 1:3 (Arian Blasphemy)St. John 4:24 (wording strangely Kabbalistic and highly blasphemous)St. John 14:6 (debateable blasphemy against Holy Spirit)Acts 4:27-30 (two appearances of Arian Blasphemy)Phillipians 2:6 (Arian blasphemy, probably the worst one on this list)1 Timothy 6:5 (does not correspond with original Greek if I've been told correctly)1 Timothy 6:10 (same as above)

Just a question, if we're not allowed to look at a woman lustfully, then how does one find their mate?

At the risk of sounding cliché, you don’t marry what you see (a hottie), you marry who the person is (hottie on the inside). Marriage is about compatibility and emotional connection, not lust. That’s why, when looking for a spouse, you don’t look for one who turns you on today, you look for one you want to wake up next to at 67 and smells funny.

You got a point, but come on, you would be lying if you said that physical attraction doesn't play at least a miniscule part in this. You're going to tell me that your wife's physical appearance was never on your mind when you were courting each other?

Very miniscule. I found her very attractive, but sex wasn’t what was on my mind, and the attractive I mean is pretty, not sexy. I was actually looking for a wife, not a roll in the hay. When looking for a wife, there are so many more important things to consider than if you think she looks good in a swim suit.

The approach you are considering is one of the reasons marriage is so disposable today. People marry because they turn each other on only to find out later they don’t even really like the other person. This is why is it so extremely important to wait before having sexual relations. It is only a part of marriage, not even the biggest part.

I have to agree here. My wife and I found each other attractive but it was the conversation that hooked us and her personality and the "getting to know her" that made me think that she brought out the best in me. My desire to be a better man because of my relationship with her and my desire to make her happy is what lead to marriage. Any lust was due to my own sinful failings and from the bad habits I brought into the relationship from previous ones.

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.

1 Corinthians 6:9Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

It seems like every version after the 1611/1613 KJV/AV has gone into a downward spiral of evangelical bias and overtly secular translations which distort the native tongues of Hebrew and Greek (I don't speak Greek so I have to go by what I'm told for that one)Most of the mistakes in the 1613 and back are honest mistakes (like the Jehovah phenomenon), even in the Puritan 1599 Geneva Bible and the Geneva series in general, they kept their Protestant bias to marginal notes...

But how is the NKJV specifically heretical? You don't say anything about this at all.

as I said before, it's going in a downward spiral of Protestant wording and bias. There is even [small] talk of discontinuing all KJV/AV versions with the "apocrypha" other than the 1611/1613. It is a lot smaller than the discussions for other translations (like many of the ones who didn't even include any form of apocrypha, as if putting them in a seperate section entitled with a word that means "hidden" wasn't bad enough).

I could write a book about what is going wrong with most Bible translations nowadays (and many people already have)

also, here are a few things you should make note of if you get any online parallel toolsGenesis 2:18Genesis 22:8 (possible Arianism)Genesis 24:47 (although there is some debate)Psalm 109:6 removes "satan" as well as many other foremost translations like NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSVSt. Mathew 12:40St. Matthew 18:26 (blasphemy)St. Luke 21:8 St. John 1:3 (Arian Blasphemy)St. John 4:24 (wording strangely Kabbalistic and highly blasphemous)St. John 14:6 (debateable blasphemy against Holy Spirit)Acts 4:27-30 (two appearances of Arian Blasphemy)Phillipians 2:6 (Arian blasphemy, probably the worst one on this list)1 Timothy 6:5 (does not correspond with original Greek if I've been told correctly)1 Timothy 6:10 (same as above)

You're still talking about a great number of modern translations and including the NKJV in your gross generalizations without addressing the substance of the NKJV specifically. That doesn't answer my question, so let's try again. What specifically do you find heretical about the New King James Version? In answer to my question, please limit your criticism solely to the New King James Version.

Leviticus has a lot of information people don't like, disregard, and attempt to persuade it actually says something it does not. It’s difficult to have a real discussion with someone who does this. It’s one of the many things which pushed me away from being protestant and toward Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy doesn’t change no matter how much someone wants it to be different. It is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t.

You mean like the Oriental Orthodox since the mid-fifth century?

No

Fair enough. But then, which side of the accept-it-or-not do you put them (since the mid-fifth century that is) on? It has to be one or the other, right?

Have either really changed in the last 1500 years? I do not believe it would matter which one was chosen.

So, just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, you're putting them on the accepting-it side of the "[Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t", right?

It doesn't matter to which you belong (EO/OO), both are Orthodox and neither are in the habit of changing things.

Leviticus has a lot of information people don't like, disregard, and attempt to persuade it actually says something it does not. It’s difficult to have a real discussion with someone who does this. It’s one of the many things which pushed me away from being protestant and toward Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy doesn’t change no matter how much someone wants it to be different. It is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t.

You mean like the Oriental Orthodox since the mid-fifth century?

No

Fair enough. But then, which side of the accept-it-or-not do you put them (since the mid-fifth century that is) on? It has to be one or the other, right?

Have either really changed in the last 1500 years? I do not believe it would matter which one was chosen.

So, just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, you're putting them on the accepting-it side of the "[Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t", right?

It doesn't matter to which you belong (EO/OO), both are Orthodox and neither are in the habit of changing things.

This post, like your earlier one, seems to me to imply that you put the Oriental Orthodox on the accepting-it side of the "[Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t".

Leviticus has a lot of information people don't like, disregard, and attempt to persuade it actually says something it does not. It’s difficult to have a real discussion with someone who does this. It’s one of the many things which pushed me away from being protestant and toward Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy doesn’t change no matter how much someone wants it to be different. It is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t.

You mean like the Oriental Orthodox since the mid-fifth century?

No

Fair enough. But then, which side of the accept-it-or-not do you put them (since the mid-fifth century that is) on? It has to be one or the other, right?

Have either really changed in the last 1500 years? I do not believe it would matter which one was chosen.

So, just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, you're putting them on the accepting-it side of the "[Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t", right?

It doesn't matter to which you belong (EO/OO), both are Orthodox and neither are in the habit of changing things.

This post, like your earlier one, seems to me to imply that you put the Oriental Orthodox on the accepting-it side of the "[Orthodoxy] is what it is and you either accept it or you don’t".

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.

1 Corinthians 6:9Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

It seems like every version after the 1611/1613 KJV/AV has gone into a downward spiral of evangelical bias and overtly secular translations which distort the native tongues of Hebrew and Greek (I don't speak Greek so I have to go by what I'm told for that one)Most of the mistakes in the 1613 and back are honest mistakes (like the Jehovah phenomenon), even in the Puritan 1599 Geneva Bible and the Geneva series in general, they kept their Protestant bias to marginal notes...

But how is the NKJV specifically heretical? You don't say anything about this at all.

as I said before, it's going in a downward spiral of Protestant wording and bias. There is even [small] talk of discontinuing all KJV/AV versions with the "apocrypha" other than the 1611/1613. It is a lot smaller than the discussions for other translations (like many of the ones who didn't even include any form of apocrypha, as if putting them in a seperate section entitled with a word that means "hidden" wasn't bad enough).

I could write a book about what is going wrong with most Bible translations nowadays (and many people already have)

also, here are a few things you should make note of if you get any online parallel toolsGenesis 2:18Genesis 22:8 (possible Arianism)Genesis 24:47 (although there is some debate)Psalm 109:6 removes "satan" as well as many other foremost translations like NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSVSt. Mathew 12:40St. Matthew 18:26 (blasphemy)St. Luke 21:8 St. John 1:3 (Arian Blasphemy)St. John 4:24 (wording strangely Kabbalistic and highly blasphemous)St. John 14:6 (debateable blasphemy against Holy Spirit)Acts 4:27-30 (two appearances of Arian Blasphemy)Phillipians 2:6 (Arian blasphemy, probably the worst one on this list)1 Timothy 6:5 (does not correspond with original Greek if I've been told correctly)1 Timothy 6:10 (same as above)

You're still talking about a great number of modern translations and including the NKJV in your gross generalizations without addressing the substance of the NKJV specifically. That doesn't answer my question, so let's try again. What specifically do you find heretical about the New King James Version? In answer to my question, please limit your criticism solely to the New King James Version.

Actually no, I was only talking about the NKJV vs. the KJV, when I said to go on an online parallel for the verses. As you can see, much of it has been reworded for some reason, and it matches some Arian/New Age/Kabbalistic ideology.

The OSB commentary clears up most possible heresies from the NKJV of the New Testament so does it really matter? Sure it could have been better, but most Orthodox who use the OSB are probably going to be converts who are new to the faith, so they probably will not even notice any of the heretical aspects because they'll be so busy focusing on everything else and talking to their spiritual fathers.

Logged

Until I see the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come, I will not believe.

I've come to the same conclusions (somewhat) before that fornication is never explicitly condemned in the Bible, but the argument used against me is always that the Church says it's wrong, therefore it's wrong.

1 Corinthians 6:9Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

It seems like every version after the 1611/1613 KJV/AV has gone into a downward spiral of evangelical bias and overtly secular translations which distort the native tongues of Hebrew and Greek (I don't speak Greek so I have to go by what I'm told for that one)Most of the mistakes in the 1613 and back are honest mistakes (like the Jehovah phenomenon), even in the Puritan 1599 Geneva Bible and the Geneva series in general, they kept their Protestant bias to marginal notes...

But how is the NKJV specifically heretical? You don't say anything about this at all.

as I said before, it's going in a downward spiral of Protestant wording and bias. There is even [small] talk of discontinuing all KJV/AV versions with the "apocrypha" other than the 1611/1613. It is a lot smaller than the discussions for other translations (like many of the ones who didn't even include any form of apocrypha, as if putting them in a seperate section entitled with a word that means "hidden" wasn't bad enough).

I could write a book about what is going wrong with most Bible translations nowadays (and many people already have)

also, here are a few things you should make note of if you get any online parallel toolsGenesis 2:18Genesis 22:8 (possible Arianism)Genesis 24:47 (although there is some debate)Psalm 109:6 removes "satan" as well as many other foremost translations like NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSVSt. Mathew 12:40St. Matthew 18:26 (blasphemy)St. Luke 21:8 St. John 1:3 (Arian Blasphemy)St. John 4:24 (wording strangely Kabbalistic and highly blasphemous)St. John 14:6 (debateable blasphemy against Holy Spirit)Acts 4:27-30 (two appearances of Arian Blasphemy)Phillipians 2:6 (Arian blasphemy, probably the worst one on this list)1 Timothy 6:5 (does not correspond with original Greek if I've been told correctly)1 Timothy 6:10 (same as above)

You're still talking about a great number of modern translations and including the NKJV in your gross generalizations without addressing the substance of the NKJV specifically. That doesn't answer my question, so let's try again. What specifically do you find heretical about the New King James Version? In answer to my question, please limit your criticism solely to the New King James Version.

Actually no, I was only talking about the NKJV vs. the KJV, when I said to go on an online parallel for the verses. As you can see, much of it has been reworded for some reason, and it matches some Arian/New Age/Kabbalistic ideology.

I did the comparative reading for myself and learned just how laughable it is that you work so hard to find heresy and blasphemy where there is none of either. Let's look, for example, at Matthew 18:26. To fall down before (NKJV) is the literal definition of "worship" (KJV). It makes no difference whether we call Jesus Lord (KJV) or Master (NKJV), especially considering that the Lenten Prayer of St. Ephraim starts with the phrase "O Lord AND Master..." Besides, this passage from the Gospel of Matthew was a parable, a parable, which means that Jesus was not identifying Himself explicitly as the "Lord" and "master" of whom He spoke in this verse.

Actually no, I was only talking about the NKJV vs. the KJV, when I said to go on an online parallel for the verses. As you can see, much of it has been reworded for some reason, and it matches some Arian/New Age/Kabbalistic ideology.

I did the comparative reading for myself and learned just how laughable it is that you work so hard to find heresy and blasphemy where there is none of either. Let's look, for example, at Matthew 18:26. To fall down before (NKJV) is the literal definition of "worship" (KJV). It makes no difference whether we call Jesus Lord (KJV) or Master (NKJV), especially considering that the Lenten Prayer of St. Ephraim starts with the phrase "O Lord AND Master..." Besides, this passage from the Gospel of Matthew was a parable, a parable, which means that Jesus was not identifying Himself explicitly as the "Lord" and "master" of whom He spoke in this verse.

And here I was thinking I had left the strange folk religion of KJV-onlyism with the Baptists. What would we call this? Sola 1611?

My favorite online rant against the NKJV was about the alleged pagan markings on its original cover.

« Last Edit: January 24, 2013, 12:27:21 PM by Agabus »

Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH